Contempt of court question
Discussion
Hi
I posted on here a while back about a civil case that is still ongoing. It' not me by the way!
However, three years on and three abandoned day before court dates later due to lack of judges, the hearing is supposedly going to be in June. The issue the defendant B has is they can prove the documents provided as witness statements and various other documents (text messages / photos etc) are fake / lies provided by A's friends posing as customers.
Because these documents have been continually faked and as the defendant, their solicitor says the onus is on A to prove what they are saying is true, not for B to disprove it. They will only request the Judge looks for contempt during the hearing. They have said the judge may or may not do this basically depending on the day as they only have 90 mins (!).
B's point is that if A hadn't perpetually faked documents this would never have gone on this long or cost so much money. B has basically had a massive legal bill run up defending provable lies that should have been nipped in the bud years ago.
B's solicitor is reluctant to issue contempt proceedings as he says the courts take a dim view. However, if people are allowed to perpetuate lies unchallenged and run up massive bills for people, what is the point of a contempt law? How many fake documents does it take before anyone says enough is enough? A is now on their second barrister and their solicitor has bailed out too.
How can someone keep lying on official documents to the courts and it not become a criminal matter?
Thanks
I posted on here a while back about a civil case that is still ongoing. It' not me by the way!
However, three years on and three abandoned day before court dates later due to lack of judges, the hearing is supposedly going to be in June. The issue the defendant B has is they can prove the documents provided as witness statements and various other documents (text messages / photos etc) are fake / lies provided by A's friends posing as customers.
Because these documents have been continually faked and as the defendant, their solicitor says the onus is on A to prove what they are saying is true, not for B to disprove it. They will only request the Judge looks for contempt during the hearing. They have said the judge may or may not do this basically depending on the day as they only have 90 mins (!).
B's point is that if A hadn't perpetually faked documents this would never have gone on this long or cost so much money. B has basically had a massive legal bill run up defending provable lies that should have been nipped in the bud years ago.
B's solicitor is reluctant to issue contempt proceedings as he says the courts take a dim view. However, if people are allowed to perpetuate lies unchallenged and run up massive bills for people, what is the point of a contempt law? How many fake documents does it take before anyone says enough is enough? A is now on their second barrister and their solicitor has bailed out too.
How can someone keep lying on official documents to the courts and it not become a criminal matter?
Thanks
No expertise to offer I'm afraid but just wondering what the point of contempt of court is, if courts "take a dim view" of someone highlighting it.
Is it more that it's a stick for judges to wield and something for them to identify and act upon, not something for mere plebs to try to highlight?
Is it more that it's a stick for judges to wield and something for them to identify and act upon, not something for mere plebs to try to highlight?
Forget contempt and just try and win
B or his/her solicitor needs to make an Application, with a detailed witness statment, with exhibits, to show that the evidence from A is fake. The Applicaton should ask the court to bar A from relying on this evidence, which I assume would mean they would lose the case. Should have a better chance with the Court and ask for costs
B or his/her solicitor needs to make an Application, with a detailed witness statment, with exhibits, to show that the evidence from A is fake. The Applicaton should ask the court to bar A from relying on this evidence, which I assume would mean they would lose the case. Should have a better chance with the Court and ask for costs
AIUI if both parties are happy that written statements are correct they can be taken as read (?) by the court and those who gave the statements don't have to attend (happened to me in a criminal case 7 years ago - it took about that long for the case to get to court).
If either party doesn't believe the statement is correct then the giver of the statement has to attend and can be cross examined.
If either party doesn't believe the statement is correct then the giver of the statement has to attend and can be cross examined.
IJWS15 said:
AIUI if both parties are happy that written statements are correct they can be taken as read (?) by the court and those who gave the statements don't have to attend (happened to me in a criminal case 7 years ago - it took about that long for the case to get to court).
If either party doesn't believe the statement is correct then the giver of the statement has to attend and can be cross examined.
Apparently, there isn't going to be time to call those (5) different people for cross examination as there is only 90 mins allocated. One document is a 'doctor's note' that is badly written, medical spelling errors, unsigned, no NHS number and no qualifications under the GP's name. 'A's friend works at said medical practice. A court order was obtained for the original of this which has been ignored by A. B's solicitor is of the opinion if A doesn't provide the original, it cannot be relied upon.If either party doesn't believe the statement is correct then the giver of the statement has to attend and can be cross examined.
A previous telephone hearing said the case had to be heard in a single day and in the County court. 'A' wanted it to go to the high court which was rejected.
Rockets7 said:
Any noise of ‘uttering a forged instrument’?
Thank you - the view of the solicitor is this will come out during cross examination in Court and it is not 'gentlemanly' to basically call someone an outright liar, but essentially that would mean A's case would fail (as it should), but A would most likely not get done for contempt. B's solicitor has raised 'fundamental dishonesty', this has been batted back as 'don't use that to try to scare us'. As with any litigation it's not what you think, or what you say happened, but what you can prove.
The "normal" tactic in these situations is to gather your proof then present it before the hearing to the claimants and invite them to withdraw the claim, or settle at a more realistic value based on what you can prove. Courts take a dim view of people being "ambushed" in courts as its a waste of their time.
This sounds like what they were trying to do by raising the claimants lawyers awareness that the case was fundamentally dishonest. The claimants have ignored that and are pressing on to a hearing as they believe, based on the evidence supplied by their client that they will succeed.
Having to deal with evidence presented against you that you believe is likely to be fake or unreliable is galling, but unless you have cast iron proof that it has been manufactured or manipulated then it's there, and will have notice taken of it. How much notice is up to the individual judge at the time of the hearing.
In civil litigation the burden of proof is in the claimant to prove their case "on the balance of probability", not "beyond all reasonable doubt".
So as an example, if an accident occurred, the claimant suffered some form of injury and has some evidence of that, then unless you are able to prove that there was no accident, or no injury at all, their case is going to succeed.
To what extent it succeeds i.e how much they win, comes down to how much the judge believes them, what has been presented as evidence and what happens on the day in court.
As it's the defendants settling the claim, then the "loser" pays costs so will be on for the claimants legal costs, unless they can come to a separate agreement on these as part of the settlement.
Frankly, that's unlikely as the claimants lawyers main interest in the case is their fees, and making sure they walk away with them being paid, so any settlement at all is likely to be dependent on the claimant costs being paid in full.
I have seen settlements being rejected even if it was exactly the amount the claimant's wanted, due to the fact that the claimants costs were being disputed, or likely to be disputed by the defendants insurer or lawyers.
The court may look down upon evidence that is supplied and is unsatisfactory, but based on experience unless it's a rare case with massive public interest to send a message, they are unlikely to hold the claimant in contempt for bringing a claim that fails to be proved.
As has been mentioned above, trying to tell the court what they should or shouldn't do rarely works, it's better to draw the courts attention to the discrepancies you can prove and make a request for the evidence to be struck out and the claimant to have to continue to prove their claim without it.
The "normal" tactic in these situations is to gather your proof then present it before the hearing to the claimants and invite them to withdraw the claim, or settle at a more realistic value based on what you can prove. Courts take a dim view of people being "ambushed" in courts as its a waste of their time.
This sounds like what they were trying to do by raising the claimants lawyers awareness that the case was fundamentally dishonest. The claimants have ignored that and are pressing on to a hearing as they believe, based on the evidence supplied by their client that they will succeed.
Having to deal with evidence presented against you that you believe is likely to be fake or unreliable is galling, but unless you have cast iron proof that it has been manufactured or manipulated then it's there, and will have notice taken of it. How much notice is up to the individual judge at the time of the hearing.
In civil litigation the burden of proof is in the claimant to prove their case "on the balance of probability", not "beyond all reasonable doubt".
So as an example, if an accident occurred, the claimant suffered some form of injury and has some evidence of that, then unless you are able to prove that there was no accident, or no injury at all, their case is going to succeed.
To what extent it succeeds i.e how much they win, comes down to how much the judge believes them, what has been presented as evidence and what happens on the day in court.
As it's the defendants settling the claim, then the "loser" pays costs so will be on for the claimants legal costs, unless they can come to a separate agreement on these as part of the settlement.
Frankly, that's unlikely as the claimants lawyers main interest in the case is their fees, and making sure they walk away with them being paid, so any settlement at all is likely to be dependent on the claimant costs being paid in full.
I have seen settlements being rejected even if it was exactly the amount the claimant's wanted, due to the fact that the claimants costs were being disputed, or likely to be disputed by the defendants insurer or lawyers.
The court may look down upon evidence that is supplied and is unsatisfactory, but based on experience unless it's a rare case with massive public interest to send a message, they are unlikely to hold the claimant in contempt for bringing a claim that fails to be proved.
As has been mentioned above, trying to tell the court what they should or shouldn't do rarely works, it's better to draw the courts attention to the discrepancies you can prove and make a request for the evidence to be struck out and the claimant to have to continue to prove their claim without it.
Edited by ResQ1 on Friday 11th March 19:09
Edited by ResQ1 on Friday 11th March 19:15
OK - the claimant is stating their health and businesses have suffered as a result of B's actions.
Hence the 'doctor's note'.
The claimants own social media postings directly contradict this (many years worth have since been deleted but fortunately copies were obtained prior).
A particular example shows the claimant in a hot tub with a blow up doll and booze on the day they supposedly collapsed on their drive with chest pains and are on several types of prescription medication (three of which you cannot drink with). Many bragging posts about how well the businesses are doing and expanding.
The claimant has been notified of these points three separate times as they have been presented with the skeleton argument only for the case to be pulled an hour or so later the day before the hearing.
Unfortunately, this has had the effect of giving the claimant the 'answers to the exam papers' and the claim and evidence has been repeatedly amended and new lies brought in as they realise they are doomed. Point is, this has now gone on over 3 years and cost tens of thousands of pounds and as the claimant is never taken to task about the fake documents by a Judge, it is never ending.
Hence the 'doctor's note'.
The claimants own social media postings directly contradict this (many years worth have since been deleted but fortunately copies were obtained prior).
A particular example shows the claimant in a hot tub with a blow up doll and booze on the day they supposedly collapsed on their drive with chest pains and are on several types of prescription medication (three of which you cannot drink with). Many bragging posts about how well the businesses are doing and expanding.
The claimant has been notified of these points three separate times as they have been presented with the skeleton argument only for the case to be pulled an hour or so later the day before the hearing.
Unfortunately, this has had the effect of giving the claimant the 'answers to the exam papers' and the claim and evidence has been repeatedly amended and new lies brought in as they realise they are doomed. Point is, this has now gone on over 3 years and cost tens of thousands of pounds and as the claimant is never taken to task about the fake documents by a Judge, it is never ending.
Resurrection post.
The case went to court about 18 months ago. As suspected, Claimant lost. Costs awarded. Claimant appealed and lost. Claimant then told everyone they hadn't lost and it was 'just an expensive arguement'.
It has since transpired the claimants witness were under the impression it was the claimant being sued. They were shocked to discover it was the opposite.
Anyways, the court transcript is now online.
This was quoted by the winning part on their personal Facebook page naming various parties in the proceedings, basically stting they had won, not lost and there was the facts if anyone wished to look.
Roll on a few months later, BIB knock on door to attend police station for voluntary interview as Claimant has stated facebook post is harassment. Winning party attends with solicitor who says its 'going nowhere'.
phonecall yesterday to say winning party is being charged and will had to appear at Mag Court sometime next year. Solicitor is aghast.
Opinions? Winner is once again subject to lies and fabrications, they stand by their Facebook post that was made to 'clear their name' against what Claimant was telling people, not to cause Claimant distress.
To give an idea of figures so far, Winning party spent £80K, got £60k back (was paid in instalments), now this is going to be about another £5K.
Claimant is clearly unhinged and will not stop. Local police (different area) are not interested.
The case went to court about 18 months ago. As suspected, Claimant lost. Costs awarded. Claimant appealed and lost. Claimant then told everyone they hadn't lost and it was 'just an expensive arguement'.
It has since transpired the claimants witness were under the impression it was the claimant being sued. They were shocked to discover it was the opposite.
Anyways, the court transcript is now online.
This was quoted by the winning part on their personal Facebook page naming various parties in the proceedings, basically stting they had won, not lost and there was the facts if anyone wished to look.
Roll on a few months later, BIB knock on door to attend police station for voluntary interview as Claimant has stated facebook post is harassment. Winning party attends with solicitor who says its 'going nowhere'.
phonecall yesterday to say winning party is being charged and will had to appear at Mag Court sometime next year. Solicitor is aghast.
Opinions? Winner is once again subject to lies and fabrications, they stand by their Facebook post that was made to 'clear their name' against what Claimant was telling people, not to cause Claimant distress.
To give an idea of figures so far, Winning party spent £80K, got £60k back (was paid in instalments), now this is going to be about another £5K.
Claimant is clearly unhinged and will not stop. Local police (different area) are not interested.
sebdangerfield said:
Even when you win a fight, you come away bloodied, bruised and tired. Sometimes it's better to avoid a fight than to win one. Seems utterly crazy, but you know that.
Yes - but Claimant has now managed to convince BIB this is a criminal matter when in fact, it is purely malicious fabrication for revenge at losing the case and their Facebook mole telling them that B had spilled the beans about what actually happened. I cannot understand what A must have said to the police to get passed to and by the CPS. I think they will only know the bare minimum before the trial.I can't fathom why, after the huge cost and pointless effort your friend has gone to in order to defend the allegation, that they'd then poke the crazy bear and air it on social media. It's so obvious that it'd provoke a response it beggars belief that they'd be unhappy when it got one. Make sure your friend's solicitor acquires the social media posts and responses as, from what you say it'll easily prove their innocence.
sebdangerfield said:
I can't fathom why, after the huge cost and pointless effort your friend has gone to in order to defend the allegation, that they'd then poke the crazy bear and air it on social media. It's so obvious that it'd provoke a response it beggars belief that they'd be unhappy when it got one. Make sure your friend's solicitor acquires the social media posts and responses as, from what you say it'll easily prove their innocence.
Agreed, but it's done now. I think it's the fact they're £20K down for having to deal with years of lies from this nutjob and even after the lost appeal, the Claimant still can't keep their mouth shut, and is lying about the verdict. Yes, so what, they have lied all along so not unexpected. I don't know, maybe the £20k wouldn't grate so much if there was the satisfaction of the claimant having to admit they lost.The solicitor has the social media posts and said it was going nowhere. He appears to be wrong.
BTW B tried to settle several times along the way, but the Claimant insisted. Wanted it taking to the High Court!
sebdangerfield said:
I can't fathom why, after the huge cost and pointless effort your friend has gone to in order to defend the allegation, that they'd then poke the crazy bear and air it on social media. It's so obvious that it'd provoke a response it beggars belief that they'd be unhappy when it got one. Make sure your friend's solicitor acquires the social media posts and responses as, from what you say it'll easily prove their innocence.
But is it criminal harassment for them to have done so?Vron said:
Opinions? Winner is once again subject to lies and fabrications, they stand by their Facebook post that was made to 'clear their name' against what Claimant was telling people, not to cause Claimant distress.
To give an idea of figures so far, Winning party spent £80K, got £60k back (was paid in instalments), now this is going to be about another £5K.
Claimant is clearly unhinged and will not stop. Local police (different area) are not interested.
Opinion. There's more to this that you're disclosing.To give an idea of figures so far, Winning party spent £80K, got £60k back (was paid in instalments), now this is going to be about another £5K.
Claimant is clearly unhinged and will not stop. Local police (different area) are not interested.
Fact. The prosecution needs to prove, beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant knew (subjective test) or ought to have known (objective test) that the defendant's course of conduct caused the complainant 'alarm or distress'. This is more than mere annoyance but there does not need to be intent.
There is a defence that it was reasonable for the defendant to cause the harassment. I suspect the CPS will expect the defendant to come to court and show that he acted reasonably in the particular circumstances.
I would be interested to see how his lawyers defend this.
I really don’t know. I’ve seen the Facebook post and it is basically a summary of what had happened with reference to the court case number if anyone wanted to check. No name calling or anything. Their solicitor said truth is an ‘absolute defence’ and as everything is true, however unpalatable the claimant found it it’s not harassment is it?
Again, I only know the brief details in that the claimant has said the winner said they had indecent images (they didn’t) and there is no evidence of this unless the Claimant has been at the cut and paste again.
Since the verdict, the claimant did email the winner’s solicitor, barrister and their own barrister and solicitor a message that had been manipulated to look like it had come from the winner. They have fabricated ‘evidence’ all along. For example ‘creating’ a company and saying they’d lost £50k because of the winner. The Judge saw straight through that.
I can only think the police have taken the claimants statement at their word and have not bothered to delve any deeper with the ‘indecent’ comment.
Again, I only know the brief details in that the claimant has said the winner said they had indecent images (they didn’t) and there is no evidence of this unless the Claimant has been at the cut and paste again.
Since the verdict, the claimant did email the winner’s solicitor, barrister and their own barrister and solicitor a message that had been manipulated to look like it had come from the winner. They have fabricated ‘evidence’ all along. For example ‘creating’ a company and saying they’d lost £50k because of the winner. The Judge saw straight through that.
I can only think the police have taken the claimants statement at their word and have not bothered to delve any deeper with the ‘indecent’ comment.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff